Thoughts on the case from criminal profiler Pat Brown

chirpyinsect wrote:

Heisenburg wrote:

maesi wrote:Well here's a conspiracy for you: I have come to believe that Madeleine McCann never existed.

To follow that on,was there a passport? if so she must have went through control if not then surely it would have been found out from the get go.
ETA just checked there was indeed a passport.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MADELINE.htm

Yes a passport of a baby. 3 almost 4 years later the child would bear no resemblance to the photo. Now maybe the hoax had to happen before they would require a more up to date photo ie of a 5 year old as child passports had a validity of 5 years. Just a thought.

But three children went through passport control,the only reported missing one is?

Heisenburg wrote:

maesi wrote:Well here's a conspiracy for you: I have come to believe that Madeleine McCann never existed.

To follow that on,was there a passport? if so she must have went through control if not then surely it would have been found out from the get go.
ETA just checked there was indeed a passport.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MADELINE.htm

There was indeed a photocopy of a 'Madeleine  McCann ' passport in the PJ Files with a photograph of a child supposedly not yet quite three months old. Compare that image to the baby  that Kate is holding in the garden or the baby on the bench with Granddad. The presence of a passport in an apartment   means nothing just as the presence of a name in the crèche does not prove that a child called Madeleine  ever attended.
I would really welcome any counter arguments to the claim of Madeleine's non existence ..................I have no agenda here other than a search for the truth.

Anybody know who took the video of Madeleine getting on to the plane for Portugal? Was the video spliced to just show the McCann content or was the whole content just the McCanns? If so, why? Weren't the other friends just as important? Just wondering...................or is it wandering?

nannygroves wrote:Anybody know who took the video of Madeleine getting on to the plane for Portugal? Was the video spliced to just show the McCann content or was the whole content just the McCanns? If so, why? Weren't the other friends just as important? Just wondering...................or is it wandering?

Why was a video even released, if not to "prove" that Madeleine was on that trip?

Heisenburg wrote:

chirpyinsect wrote:

Heisenburg wrote:

maesi wrote:Well here's a conspiracy for you: I have come to believe that Madeleine McCann never existed.

To follow that on,was there a passport? if so she must have went through control if not then surely it would have been found out from the get go.
ETA just checked there was indeed a passport.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MADELINE.htm

Yes a passport of a baby. 3 almost 4 years later the child would bear no resemblance to the photo. Now maybe the hoax had to happen before they would require a more up to date photo ie of a 5 year old as child passports had a validity of 5 years. Just a thought.

But three children went through passport control,the only reported missing one is?

Oh a child went through but who could prove it was Madeleine? I don't want to say that I deffo believe she didn't exist or wasn't there but if I can find definite proof she was there or lived at all I will be happy.

froggy wrote:

nannygroves wrote:Anybody know who took the video of Madeleine getting on to the plane for Portugal? Was the video spliced to just show the McCann content or was the whole content just the McCanns? If so, why? Weren't the other friends just as important? Just wondering...................or is it wandering?

Why was a video even released, if not to "prove" that Madeleine was on that trip?

If they wanted to prove such things then surely the whole thing would have been devised a whole lot better? If it was all a big hoax then planning would have gone into it, instead we have a cobbled together mess.   There is no counter argument in my mind for such theories because I find them totally off the wall.

froggy wrote:

nannygroves wrote:Anybody know who took the video of Madeleine getting on to the plane for Portugal? Was the video spliced to just show the McCann content or was the whole content just the McCanns? If so, why? Weren't the other friends just as important? Just wondering...................or is it wandering?

Why was a video even released, if not to "prove" that Madeleine was on that trip?

Exactly. '' Prove'' is a bit strong though. ''Imply'' might equally be true.

candyfloss wrote:

froggy wrote:

nannygroves wrote:Anybody know who took the video of Madeleine getting on to the plane for Portugal? Was the video spliced to just show the McCann content or was the whole content just the McCanns? If so, why? Weren't the other friends just as important? Just wondering...................or is it wandering?

Why was a video even released, if not to "prove" that Madeleine was on that trip?

If they wanted to prove such things then surely the whole thing would have been devised a whole lot better? If it was all a big hoax then planning would have gone into it, instead we have a cobbled together mess.   There is no counter argument in my mind for such theories because I find them totally off the wall.

That's fine. Everyone to his own. I know people who think that anyone who questions the abduction scenario is totally off the wall. I believe a lot of planning has gone into it and if it was such a cobbled mess how come you are no nearer the truth now than you were nearly nine years ago ? In those nine years a lot of theories have been discussed but none of them quite fits what we think we know ( that is told by the media through planted stories and dubious photographs and gleaned from the publicised ( ! ) PJ Files ) A lot of money has been made by various people/ institutions , laws brought in that limit freedom of expression and hour upon hour spent in trying to unravel the mystery that is Madeleine McCann. . What secret could possibly be big enough to silence so many participants? I won't comment again if it upsets you so and will leave you to your well worn theories that go round and round in circles getting nowhere . I'm not criticising you here by the way , it's your site and your prerogative to choose what you show. Maybe I need a site that is more prepared to think outside the box. Thanks for having me . Goodbye and best of luck with your investigations.

I can't see any one denying you the right to express such things.

Me neither!

Your post shows what is going on here.  I think people can see exactly what is going on.....   Is it hellsbells, harry-Kerry???  So odd that hellsbells had that theory vanished with a strop yesterday, just as harry-Kerry did, and then you pop up with the same thing..  

I don't choose things - again you are twisting, my post was perfectly ok stating my opinion, yet you have twisted it to look as if I won't allow others to post.  Bye bye.

Well said Candyfloss, I for one totally agree.

Thank you Costello.

Theories can always be discussed as long as they're not libellous or batsh*t crazy with the aim of driving people away.

costello wrote:Well said Candyfloss, I for one totally agree.

Thank you Costello.

I have not said a word in this thread apart from yesterday when I commented with my opinion, which I gave and because I disagreed I was attacked immediately by hellsbells, and because the thread needed some balance I commented again today with MY opinion, and again have had my words twisted and the woe is me speech.

Please do go elsewhere if you feel we are so awful here, life is too short to stay somewhere you don't want to be.

Oh dear. Why is it some can't discuss without flouncing. Candyfloss I totally respect your opinion not to believe in pre planning or the even more bizarre idea that the whole thing is a hoax. You haven't said it can't be discussed just voiced your thoughts as any of us are free to do.

candyfloss wrote:

Please do go elsewhere if you feel we are so awful here, life is too short to stay somewhere you don't want to be.

Eccles: Everybody's got to be somewhere!

bit of humour from the goons.

@seahorse,

CAR
- cadaver odour dog:
* signalled the key of the vehicle
- blood dog:
* signalled the key of the vehicle

Not sure and not expert, but the way it reads it seems the cadaver and blood dog indicated to key fob, which mean that it was cadaver on it.

I think your right Seahorse, so in the parents bedroom, there was an alert to cadaver only as Keela did not alert in that room.

candyfloss wrote:Your post shows what is going on here.  I think people can see exactly what is going on.....   Is it hellsbells, harry-Kerry???  So odd that hellsbells had that theory vanished with a strop yesterday, just as harry-Kerry did, and then you pop up with the same thing..  I don't choose things - again you are twisting, my post was perfectly ok stating my opinion, yet you have twisted it to look as if I won't allow others to post.  Bye bye.

Candyfloss, I said goodbye yesterday because you accused me of being aggressive when I was not, and then you appeared to insult your members by calling them "experts" in inverted commas. I have no intention of posting again but will continue to read the forum as I believe there are many clever posters on here. However, I can't let you get away with accusing nannygroves of being me. Nannygroves will also be aware of this of course. I have no idea who nannygroves is and vice versa. Fact. But what this does highlight is that (a) posters who want to think outside the box are treated alike as conspiracy theorists or loonies and (b) your own detective skills aren't very good so you aren't in a good position to ridicule others. Nannygroves must be Hellsbells must be Hari Kiri because they all have similar theories and don't like being attacked and lampooned just because others don't agree with them. For what it's worth, I think MM disappeared around Xmas 2006 because all the subsequent photos are unconvincing to the point of being ridiculous. But like a few others it appears, I wouldnt rule out the possibility of her never a having existed in the first place. There you have it.

Hellsbells wrote:

candyfloss wrote:Your post shows what is going on here.  I think people can see exactly what is going on.....   Is it hellsbells, harry-Kerry???  So odd that hellsbells had that theory vanished with a strop yesterday, just as harry-Kerry did, and then you pop up with the same thing..  I don't choose things - again you are twisting, my post was perfectly ok stating my opinion, yet you have twisted it to look as if I won't allow others to post.  Bye bye.

Candyfloss, I said goodbye yesterday because you accused me of being aggressive when I was not, and then you appeared to insult your members by calling them "experts" in inverted commas. I have no intention of posting again but will continue to read the forum as I believe there are many clever posters on here. However, I can't let you get away with accusing nannygroves of being me. Nannygroves will also be aware of this of course. I have no idea who nannygroves is and vice versa. Fact. But what this does highlight is that (a) posters who want to think outside the box are treated alike as conspiracy theorists or loonies and (b) your own detective skills aren't very good so you aren't in a good position to ridicule others. Nannygroves must be Hellsbells must be Hari Kiri because they all have similar theories and don't like being attacked and lampooned just because others don't agree with them. For what it's worth, I think MM disappeared around Xmas 2006 because all the subsequent photos are unconvincing to the point of being ridiculous. But like a few others it appears, I wouldnt rule out the possibility of her never a having existed in the first place. There you have it.

Sorry, where did I accuse you of being aggressive?  

Again you are twisting and saying things that have not been said, and no one said you or anyone was a loony - I  gave my opinion, and I was the one that was attacked, and also given the sob story about how badly you are treated, same as nannygroves today, Where on earth have I said anything but give my opinion on what we were talking about.  

I am not discussing further, you have your opinion and I will continue to have mine and voice it! Now, members want to carry on discussion.....

I have split discussion on dogs to it's proper and relevant topic and place - so please carry ondiscussion here..


https://maddiemccannmystery.forumotion.co.uk/t1218p150-capabilities-of-the-dogs#50600



Locking for a while to stop more posts being posted in wrong place.

So what's the story with Tony's 'Pat v Richard' latest blog.... Apart from the bleedin obvious.

Let's leave it there in the Land of Bleeding Obvious, Andrew.

A link to where it came - such as someone's blog - would have been good though.

Thanks for that. I think that this is Jill's and / or a CMoMM related website.

Other bloggers there have included a certain Gemma Fairweather.

http://whathappenedtomadeleinemccann.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/madeleine-mccann-and-strange-story-of.html